Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

Is it time to get rid of the Royals?

£37m a year A Year :Yikes:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I believe this has been exhausted here. :D

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Yes on 17-07-2004 over a year ago and this is todays news? :rolleyes:

Lets not forget we have many new CF members :D

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

IMO it has been time to get rid of the Monarchy for a very long time, it doesn't matter how much it (the Monarchy) costs.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Even thought we get a lot of tourist out of them? Be intresting to see how much money they make out of tourists and them being them. What do they do anyway?

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The age old argument .. "they generate tourism". How ??

Tourists never get to see any of the Royal Family, they see Buck House and Changing the Guard etc. How much more income would be generated if Buck House were open to the public ? We should keep all the pomp and ceremony heritage stuff for the tourists, just without the expensive hangers on ! Without the security aspect keeping it all behind closed doors that would generate even more cash !.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Problem is it excludes security costs which must be massive.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

We can't put a figure on how much money is generated in tourismt hough, I don't think figures would fall as much as people fear they would.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Time to get rid then IMO they must be laugthing in are faces.........:dozey:

Oh to be a royal....:rolleyes:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

they could always work for a living.

how about tony blair getting them on the new deal,you never know camilla could get a job shelf stacking at the local tesco's (minimum wage of course).
and if charlie boy is missing her he could always get a job working the petrol pumps at the same place.;)

andy

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

LOL. Love it, yeah, put queenie & phil the greek into a council house on a run down estate. I see that charlie flew to Washington to attend a funeral at £85,000 when he probably could have bought a ticket for less than £300. how can we complain about corruption overseas when we allow this abuse to happen here!


:D

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I think how much they cost needs looking in to but I would not like to see them gone as they are part of our history

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

people are moaning about 61p a year??

forgive me for thinking that is a little petty- considering how much tax/ NI you pay anyway; i think this amount pales in comparison.

In a year i bet most people lose more than 61p in pennies that they drop/ "keep the change" etc etc

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

are they doing any harm? nope dont think so if u dont like it move to a country that dosnt have some royal family :) simple as that.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

i'd love to.
just two problems though,i can't afford it and i'm to old to emigrate

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Alternatively, I can campaign for the abolition of the monarchy, and you can move to a country that does have a monarch.

Nope, I'm 'moaning' about institutionalised inequality.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Shall the members of CF club together and pay your 61p?

Life's too short for all this crap again, every few months the republicans try to stir up trouble and then they fail, why keep bothering for 61p/year?

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I just thick £36 Mill can be spent on something more usefull like hospitals.
And yes life can be short with out proper funding.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I'd be surprised if you could get a new bed sheets for all the hospitals if you spread that out.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Where do you bye your bed sheets? Harrods?

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well said that man :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Do you know how many hospital beds there are?

The anual budget for the NHS is tens of billions of pounds, 36 million would hardly make a difference.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

244,000 (roughly), let's be generous and allow £30 per bed, that's £7,320, 000, leaving nearly 30 million, so in fact, you probably could kit every single NHS bed out with Harrods sheets and still have plenty left over.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

In fairness to Shaun (and despite my own feelings that our monarchy do not give good value for money - there are a whole load of costs not given in that report), the cost of providing a bed on the NHS is a bit more than the cost of the bed and sheets. You need to provide all the support services (medical, surgical, cleaning, maintenance etc) to go with it.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Don't forget that you need a clean set for every day (say 4 sets per day) and rubber sheeting and it still proves just far (or not) the money would go.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I'm moaning. That 61p is per every person in Britain, including children, pensioners and unemployed adults. So it's probably a little more that 61p if you only count those that actually pay taxes in this country.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Appreciate that this has been done to death but what no one ever says is that we could get rid of the Monarchy but to you and me it would make NO Difference at all.

We won't be any better off, we won't have any more money in our pockets and we certainly won't even see where the savings would be spent.

And if we did get rid isn't the alternative a "President/Precidency"???? NOW THAT IS SCARY :Yikes:

President Thatcher.....President Blair....Noooooooooo :disturbd:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I'd sooner have a president than a monarch anyday.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I must admit when I heard this on the way home from work on R4 I thought, 61p pff I must lose more / waste more than that every year...

but

When I read about Charlie Boys £85K trip which could have been done for less than £300 it did rather change my opinion.

That just extracts the urine.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Simple for me. I have to give far more money to unwanted illegal immigrants than i have to pay out for the royals. So you can understand which i would sooner have.
__________________

Hang on Blair thinks he is the President already :)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

People are not looking at the big picture here, so it cost 36 million. But you will probably find they generate more then that for our economy from when they make visits to other countries, the royal family generates a lot of trade and of course the tourism aspect. If you have any respect for our country and its history you would also want to keep the monarch for that reason alone. 36 million in todays day and age is nothing, I can think of a lot more things where more money was spent and its considered wasted like the £500 for every new born child, the millions going to africa countries, the iraqi war, nhs beauracracy, and housing immigrants.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Here here!

:clap:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Oh and 5 Million was spent on transport alone.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I am sick of the emotion of jealousy that is infecting our country at the moment.I don't believe that getting rid of the monarchy will change anything for those infused with this green eyed emotion because they would just transfer this same emotion to another figurehead...such as a president.


The people that I really have it in for are the fat cats who take from industry and business such huge fat bonus's,pension schemes and golden handshakes after totally screwing over said industries and business and putting so many people out of a job in an effort to reclaim failing industry and business money.Now them I truly hate.The Queen has no such power over thee and me.These g*ts do...

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Agreed

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

So let them stay but without us footing the bill.........it's time they spent their own money and gave back a bit more to those who have given unquestioningly for many many generations....
__________________

Means test their benefit as we do with pensioners etc........... :rofl:

Now taking in to account the money they have/earn they will get nothing..... :tu:

..........Like many who have worked extremely hard all of their lives :td:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

No replies??

So we all agree then! Lets means test the oiks :rofl:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Nope we are not all in agreement.But you carry on :dig: and every envy laden post will give a clearer picture.You don't need any repiles to do that. ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I think £37 million is actually quite cheap, in the context of the billions upon billions UK Ltd budgets and spends every year. I am uneasy with the constitution of this country but if I were an out-and-out Republican (and I'm far from certain that I am), this piece of news wouldn't be one of my main arguments for abolition.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Compare to the latest estimates of just under £20Bn for ID cards.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I love the royals, we have millions of visitors who visit this wonderful country every year, just to go and see buckingham palace and windsor, what would happen to them if you scrapped them, shopping Malls, flats?? We are unique as we have a very proud hertiage which is known world over, I even learnt about them in Italy. You should be proud of what you have and you should cheerish it as you will miss it when it has gone.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

But that pomp is part of English history, and you should be proud of what you have.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

They do!The Queen pays taxes and Charlie also pays his own way.He takes nothing out of the civil list at all.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The thing is, this is not money they just get handed for nothing. It is effectively their pay for all the engagements they perform. This is the total figure for all the Royals and is somewhat less than certain top footballers rake in. And IMO they work somewhat harder than your average top-flight footballer.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

:rofl:

They don't!............ we make up the shortfall of £37+ million :td:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Charles does pay tax and doesn't take anything from the civil list.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4089479.stm

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I never said we should get rid...... Just that we should not keep paying.

Their amassed wealth is the blood sweat and tears of many many men, women & children of many generations.

Let them keep it, let them stay! But let them pay......

__________________

I'm not saying they don't pay tax..... Just that they don't pay their way.

They don't pay enough because we make up the shortfall....

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

But get rid of them and we still have a cost base of buildings, building security etc that will cost the Govt. £37m a year. In fact they would probably find a PPP to run it for them at a cost of £100m a year and claim this was a saving.
__________________

The growth in the Dutchy Originals (Organic) brand must be helping the income stream.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

So now going by this we should stop paying for the upkeep of the Houses of Parliament and expect the MP's to pay for them instead out of the money we pay them as wages?

Also Charlie Boy and his son's take nothing out of the civil list.Surely we can keep them? ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

We could argue the same for mp's who get high salaries but are able to claim various topups for expenses which normal people would be expected to pay themselves.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

No we shouldn't :rolleyes:

MP's are our chosen elected representatives..... They are not in place because of some archaic privalige system....

Now if you meant the house of Lords :D

I never said we should get rid of them, stop making up your own arguments ;)

Yes we can keep him...... but stop paying :p:
__________________

Look if we keep comparing them with MP's then it's only fair that we can elect the royals as well........

:D

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

So you don't mind the fact that these people that WE vote for and WE employ and pay the wages of, can vote how much of a salary increase they can have each year AND also vote themselves inflation proof pensions just because we can vote for them in a general election each year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2145708.stm

Anyway after that comment about the house of Lords I think you are just coming across more and more as the sort who objects because you just see privilege and not the hard work that is provided by the royal family.At least with a succession there is no need for an election every 5 years.We have also got one of the longest serving monarchs which makes her very much worth the money..

But here you won't see that because you obviuosly think that they do absolutely nothing for the money..

Which is how I regard my MP incidentally who has been my MP for 30 years.He's useless but keeps getting re-elected because this is a Tory stronghold.Someone I have not voted for.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

i agree with Coggy, who do you want to vote for? The Chav Royal Family, or the royle family. There is nothing wrong with the monarchy the press should keep their nebs out.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Dont get me started on mp's, about 80% of seats are not electable they are strongholds so the mp's are chosen by party leaders not the public, and like Incognitas said we have no control over their salaries either.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

at least the royals do stuff

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

One of the Suns talking heads had a great couple of paragraphs on this today, something along the lines of compare and contrast the royal familys £37m to John Prescott who has.

Presided over the renationalisation of the railways £137Bn
The Dome £10Bn
Diving Trips for the Environment

So divvying that all up this is about £250 per man woman and child, great value, can we discuss him instead.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Get off the Royals back.

Apart froma few hangers on that I would get rid of...............

Thet do more good than harm for this country. Prove otherwise.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The reason they are a 'stronghold' is that people vote for them.

If you don't like it you can vote for somebody else, campaign for somebody else or even stand yourself.........
__________________

Yes we can.............in another thread :D :notopic:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

But the latest rejig of MP boundaries has convinently benefitted Labour more than any other party.

And re the :notopic: , being as this topic was on the subject of the waste of money the monarchy are (to take an extreme version of the title), it is only fair to interject that there are other far more extreem wastes of money in this country. The Labour government being one of them.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

We (or I) don't have to prove anything........

Let them keep doing the "good" then........ and to show gratitude for their wealth, amassed from fleecing generations, let us stop paying for them :)
__________________

Thankyou for pointing out another waste of money............

I will start another thread on that when I've finished on this waste of money ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

purenuman as long as we are a 'first past the post' voting system their will always be immune seats, if a mp is in a risky seat and the leader wants him then he gets shifted to a safe seat. Of course if we moved to proportional voting then things like tactical voting will be cut down and vote's will mean something. Incidently I did vote in the last election but I wont be voting again until the voting system changes as my area is a safe seat.

Back on topic, 37million is very little yes some money isnt spent efficiently but I think if we are going to do something about it then much bigger wastes of money should be looked at as well.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well £600M was spent on compensation for NHS medical blunders last year, I'm sure the amount is fair and reasonable to the recipients, but I'm sure they would all also rather the blunder had not occurred.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Could I throw that back at you and ask what, apart from a bit of tourist revenue and a portrait to stick on our currency, the good is that the Royals do?

Sell them to the Americans that's what I say :D

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The second paragraph is in part that is what happens anyway. Americans come here and spend money, along with people in hundreds of other countries.

As for your first paragraph, I suspect it is a more than "a bit". I'd stick a fiver on it that it is more than the 61p per person they cost everyone. Don't get me wrong, I really hate the monarchy, but I don't hate the £ÃÆ ’‚£Ãà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ they bring in. They are known as "The Firm" for a good reason - they make money.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well yeah, but they are suckers for our monarchy in the same way they are when buying Arran jumpers when rediscovering their Irish heritage. Sweeping generalisation I know, but what the heck. ;)

I'm not convinced of the idea of massive tourist revenue. Leave the Changing of the Colour and Buck Palace and they'd still come because let's face it, tourists do not get to hang out with Lizzie & Co. They are but symbols.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well, it goes deeper than that. All the way down to the Diana commemorative plates (i.e. tat).

Also, the whilst the royal family are a bunch of descendents of inbred germans, they are also a link to something in the past. Not necessarily something to be proud of, but something of historial value. Like the Tower of London. You wouldn't want that replaced with a shiny modern building would you? It is a source of pride, but it does gall some of the more culturally minded Americans (yes, they do exist) that we have schools here that are older than their country, nevermind builds like St Paul's cathederal.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Difference is the Labour Government won a election a couple on months ago.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I concur with your description of our bluebloods (I had considered doing a precis of attributes of recent royal members but found the words dim, offensive and sozzled appearing to frequently as to bore, especially the first one).

Ok, imagine a world with no royals, just the buildings. No royal trains. No royal plane charters, no astronomical security costs - I'm betting policing for the opening of monuments etc is not included in these figures as they are local costs. Instead we have Lizzie tea towels, Charlie sausages and facsimiles of Architects' Review comment pieces, limited edition Nazi Harry figurines, Duke of Edinburgh toys that spout racist garbage when you pull a string on his back etc. Bob's your uncle, heritage preserved by tourist tat sold in buildings for which we charge tourists several limbs to enter in order to purchase. Job's a good 'un. ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

There are parts of the country where you could put a red rosette (or a blue one) on a donkey and people would vote for it. They would vote for the Devil if he was standing against a Tory/ Labour candidate.

Anyone who doesn't vote in that direction may as well not bother to vote because their vote stands for *nothing*.
__________________

Sorry, where does that link say anything about Blackpool or the Royals? Seems like a duff card to me...

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Still means more people voted for the candidate than voted for any other.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Like Graham, I couldn't find about Blackpool or the Royals in there either, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, so lets say that Blackpool does attract more than all the royal attractions put together.

How many of those Blackpool visitors are from outside the UK? How many people in other countries, when planning their trip, say, nah, sod Buckingham Palace, let's go to Blackpool? Probably not many. Most of those Blackpool visitors are Brits, which does our economy no good. It isn't generating money, it is just moving it about from one place to another. We generate money from overseas visitors, not from ourselves.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

i was in the forces and as such swore to protect my country and the queen having a royal family is an honour i live on a council estate and still proud to be british as we all should so stop the anti royal and stand up and be proud ( with a big please )

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

You see that's the point. We keep all the heritage stuff that tourists like but rid ourselves of the costly inbreds. ;) :)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I want to keep the costly inbreds.Who else can we point the finger at and laugh?They are worth it from an amusement angle alone.So much more classy than Posh and Becks... ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

One thing - President Blair, how does that sound? How much would the presidential jet cost, we know he wants one.

The Austrailians had a referendum to abolish the monarchy, the thought of President Keating (?) was one of the many that kept them a monarchy.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

perish the thought of blair force 0ne:Yikes:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I have to concede that point. The other thing in their favour is they almost singlehandedly keep the populist press profitable, what with all those Di conspiracy theories, fancy dress outfits, disparaging comments about foreigners, alleged exam cheating......
__________________

Does abolishment of the monarchy automatically mean the creation of a presidential role? :shrug:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I'm proud of my anti-royal stance ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Do you believe that for yourself of because it was drilled into you by the army? No offence, but if you want to persuade someone to charge at a heavily-armed foreigner who is probably going to shoot you to pieces, it is easier to get you to do it if you're convinced that you are fighting to serve a glorious, powerful almost mystical figure like a king or queen than it is to get you to die for esoteric notions like democracy and freedom.

I lived on a council estate for the last five years and I'm still proud to be British too. Why, do council estates tend to make people ashamed of being British?

I don't agree with your implication that to be anti-Royal is to be anti-British. It would be interesting to get everyone who is interested in this thread to compile a list of things that define Britishness. Then we can compare it with what the royal family stands for and perhaps find out whether, in fact, having a royal family is becoming increasingly un-British.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I think it does. The queen currently presides or queens (is that a verb) or rules over the country. She has the executive power to enact laws etc, this is delegated to the elected parliment.

If she is abolished then someone has to have the executive power to enact law, to be the ultimate arbiter of the country, to preside over the country.

I'm not fully aufait with global politics, but for example, France who ditched their monarchy have a President. I don't know if there are examples to the contrary.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I don't think our monarchy really defines Britain. Lots of countries have monarchies, so we aren't special there. Our monarchy is descended directly from Germany, so its not even that British.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

France and the USA have executive presidents who hold power in a far more real way than our monarchy does. Executive power might technically rest with the Queen but she does not really make policy or ask her legislature to allow her to do things. Those powers are delegated to such an extent that she might as well not exist. Our queen is more like the presidents of Ireland or Germany, who are figureheads, albeit elected.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The way I understand it, is that all republics generate a presidential post, which is the new head of state (what the royals were), although I don't really see the need, it is just more beaucracy.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

we could go down the they are german road but then again st george was a turk and we are a multi racial nation.

and i apologise for the council estate comment as where i live there is a good sense of community and i wouldnt live anywhere else.
everybody is entitled to there opinion this is a free country and thats what makes britain great :Peaceman:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I thought the Royal family were responsible for making Britain great?:Sprint:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

No offence taken ... :) In the five years I lived there I saw more evidence of patriotic flag-waving than anywhere else I've ever stayed.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

i think i'll hang up my keyboard ( feeling defeated )and go down to the british legion for a pint or 8 and talk about what value for money we get for our 65p a year whilst moaning about how much tax is on beer and fuel:drunk: :argue:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

65p is good value for a head of state. As I said earlier, if I was a republican (and while I'm sure we need to overhaul our constitution, I'm not sure if I'm an out-and-out republican), I wouldn't be using the cost of the monarchy as an argument for getting rid of it. It's a very weak argument.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I'm not sure how weak the argument is (I don't trust the £37m figure for starters) but it is just one of many.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

It's extremely weak, when set against the billions that go on health, education and defence (or, to take a different tack, the estimated one TRILLION that is the combined consumer debt of British citizens today :erm: )

But I agree, there are many arguments. Simple democracy is probably the most persuasive.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

However our constitutional monarchy IMHO gives a good stabilising influence at the top, though Prez B seems to be riding roughshod over that far more than any other PM in my experience.

I think it is healthy that the person at the top can take long term views without worry of the next election or their limit of 8 years in power and can excercise guidance to that end.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Hmmm. When did the Queen last take an executive decision? IMO we should also not get caught up in the widespread dislike of the boy Blair when discussing the merits of ditching the monarchy and creating either another head of state or extending the existing powers of our highest elected official. Having said that I'm now thinking President Major and, aargh, President Thatcher ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The problem with that of course is that the Queen's long-term view and guidance is so heavily cloaked in tradtion and secrecy that we have absolutely no idea whether it's any good or not. And by definition, it can only really be any good when the position has been held by someone for a long time, as with our Queen.

Once she pops off - and she is now quite an old lady - her brainless twerp of a son will be in the top job. What kind of advice is he going to be dishing out? And in the monumentally unlikely event of the succession passing straight to William, as some have demanded, what then? He's barely out of nappies! Who the smeg is he to give advice to someone like Tony Blair? Love him or loathe him, Blair has got more top-table experience of life in his little finger than young Wills has in his entire over-privileged body.

The notion of someone in the top post who can bring stability and a long-term veiw is a very good one, but the lottery of a hereditary monarchy is IMO a bad way of fulfilling it.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I've been pondering on this, and one thing that has suggested itself is what if the monarchy were replaced with some kind of jury or magistrate system? Beyond that suggestion though I have no idea how it would work :) and it also doesn't satisfy the innate need people seem to have for a singular person to focus on (a.k.a a figurehead).

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Anything that gets us away from personality politics and policy by media would get my vote.